The High Price of Gas
On April 27, Daniel Weintraub wrote:
Disconnect
Within 24 hours, Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer announced that he is suing the federal government for not doing enough to stop global warming, and he is going after the oil companies for charging too much for gas. If you're concerned about global warming, shouldn't you be in favor of higher gas prices?
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/----------
The good Mr. Weintraub is right and wrong here.
The problem is not the high price of a tank of gas. It's that the benefits of this high price goes into Chevron's deep pockets instead of somewhere much more useful, such as:
- Research and delivery of alternative energy sources.
- People-friendly roads and neighborhoods, to encourage walking, biking and general sharing of community.
- Rewards to communities who adopt sustainable and healthy community design.
- Expansion of public transportation choices.
- Discretionary funds for local communities to come up with their own choices for transportation and community design, to tap the creativity of the people who actuall live and work in our communities.
- And, universal no fault pay-at-the-pump auto insurance to replace our current corporate welfare auto insurance system which puts insurance out of reach for those who need it most with guaranteed profits for insurance firms.
All of this could be done with a decent price on a tank of gas built by fees, not corporate profit.
That's the problem with the price of a tank of gas today. It's going to the wrong people. It ought to come back to us.
Running Against Elvis
Rocky Delgadillo's recent attacks on fellow candidate for the Democratic nomination for Attorney Jerry Brown reminds of me of something a friend told me while running a campaign for one of Jerry Brown's mayoral rivals in Oakland in 1998.
"It's like running against Elvis", she said.
With Brown, an icon in California politics whether you love him or hate him, issues and goals get lost behind the legendary personality. In this situation the question in voters' minds is who the candidate is personally, a referendum on the man or woman, not the issues at hand. Do you what "Governor Moonbeam" or a saintly visionary, depending who's asking and answering the question. As a challenger, you can't fight that without resorting to attacks on the rival's personality, which can come off as bitter and petty.
It's even harder for Delgadillo because part of his campaign message is his own
log-cabin-to-City-Hall story. People need to believe that such success comes about due to personal virtue. Lose that image and you've lost the battle of personality. Do nothing and the rival's personality overwhelms your message. I saw it in Oakland in 1998 when Brown cleared out a field of challengers where the second place garnered around 15 percent of the vote. It ain't easy.
This race is Brown's to lose and he's too smart of a politician to let that happen. For those of us who have followed his career from governor to Democratic Party chair to presidential candidate to mayor of Oakland, and know his random style of dealing with issues and reputation for being an impossible man to work for, having him run the state AG's office should be interesting. Not necessarily effective but certainly never dull.
Steve Westly for President
No, I haven’t suddenly decided that
Steve Westly is presidential timber. As an observer of the political scene, however, I see that a good run for the governor's house by Westly holds more and broader consequences than if Phil Angelides does it.
As a committed moderate in ridiculously large state, Governor Westly would immediately be considered possible presidential candidate material. Not in 2008, that’s too soon, but if the GOP holds onto the White House two years from now then even a moderately (no pun intended) Westly would be moved to the front of the pack in 2012.
On paper, Westly’s got all the credentials the moderate national Democratic Party leadership looks for. He’s a successful businessman, to counter charges of neo-socialist leanings. He’s moderate to liberal on social issues, and has made his political living so far scrupulously avoiding them. He’s good looking and best of all, he’s “happy.” Much of the national Dem leadership looks to counter the GOP’s “last angry man” approach with waves of breezy optimism. Put him and John Edwards on the same ticket and you’ll have more joy than last Friday’s episode of “Barney” episode.
Moderate California governors generally get a good look over as possible resident of the Oval Office. Pete Wilson did, but his complete lack of charisma and his short term strategy of pounding on the growing Latino vote in the mid’’90s doomed him. Gray Davis got a look too, but he made Wilson look like Mr. Excitement in a personality comparison.
Westly doesn’t have that problem. He comes across as sincerely engaging, and honestly happy. (Who couldn’t be happy who was able to kick in over $20 million of his own dollars to his campaign?)
Even if Westly loses against Schwarzenegger, he wins. Arnold still holds enough celebrity cachet to make it acceptable for a Democratic candidate to lose with honor. Win or lose, Westly wins by providing a fresh and possible electable face to a national party starving for them.
A Westly win in the primary alone also rocks up the push for independent redistricting process. The common wisdom among statewide pundits such as
Dan Walters and
Daniel Weintraub is that there is a deep well of moderate wisdom among California voters which is marginalized by legislative districts drawn to benefit ideologues of the left and right. This voice can only be heard in statewide elections, which results in moderate executives taking on the activist wings of both parties, resulting in continual stalemate.
Schwarzenegger represents a voice of the relatively moderate (non-social issues) wing of the state GOP. If Westly beats Angelides in June, it would arguably demonstrate the existence of a less-than-tax-and-spend wing among Democrats. Again, even if Westly loses in November, he will arguably demonstrate this wing’s silent numbers and there will be a renewed push to reflect this in legislative and congressional races. There will be a new, comprehensive redistricting plan on the June 2008 ballot, mark my words.
This isn’t my wish. I support
Phil Angelides for governor in good part because only a combination of more revenue and service cuts can close the deficit. Angelides is honest enough to say that, and I hope he wins so he can keep saying it, and then move to make it happen as governor.
But in long term impact nationally and in other areas of state policy, a Westly victory in the primary alone is more far reaching.
Combat Pay
Last week I found myself in a fascinating online discussion regarding findings of alleged disparity between schools in poorer and wealthier parts of Oakland. The finds were by a research organization called Ed West Trust (
no Web link found).
Some of the report and much of the online discussion centered on the reality that experienced teachers tend to head for the hills, to the schools without the greatest need for experienced teachers. How to remedy that? The wealthier schools therefore end up with larger budgets in part due to individual decisions made by individual teachers, not race or class-based bias on the part of school policymakers. How to remedy that?
I ran this discussion past my wife, who taught in Oakland flatland schools before moving to a school with similar demographics in Sac City Unified (Sacramento). My wife served as a union rep for OEA substitute teachers before leaving Oakland.
She notes that experienced teachers move up the hill, so to speak, in part because seniority and tenure allow them to. She becomes tenured this year, which means that if her position is cut at her school she has the ability to bump someone else from their position at another school. Many teachers, if the choice between a school in a low income area and one not, choose the “not” because the student and parent population is simply less challenging. She notes that the teacher with the least seniority at the GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) school in her district has over ten years experience. And why not? Why wouldn’t a teacher prefer a classroom of attentive students with engaged parents, “up the hill” so to speak, if they can get it, for the same pay?
She also notes that many principals actually prefer less experienced, untenured teachers because they can remove them if they’re dissatisfied a lot easier than experienced, tenured teachers. Since principals in lower income schools are under the most pressure to perform, they’re therefore likely to look for teachers they can easily move in, out and around in response to the pressure.
The biggest challenge, she says, is the incredible turnover among teachers in their first three years of teaching. They’re often given challenging assignments because there is such high turnover at low income schools that this is where many hit the ground teaching, yet they’re given relatively little in terms of support. It’s really sink or swim for the first couple of years, she says. Since teachers tend to be skilled and well educated people, they can and do find somewhere else to take their skills and education if they don’t find job satisfaction in teaching to compensate for the relatively low pay.
The answer, she says, is “combat pay” and/or mandated lower class size in Program Improvement schools, 15 tops for lower grades (K-2) and 20-25 max for upper grades (3-5/6).
“Combat pay” is a wage differential, more money, for teachers who work at designated schools.
The class-size reduction is important because it allows more one-on- one and small group time for students who generally need more day-to-day assistance and direction, particularly at the critical K – 2 grade levels.
Qualified teacher’s aides would also help. When I served as a tutor and afterschool program supervisor in the Oakland public schools I found classroom aides who could barely read higher than the students they were serving. Teachers elsewhere in Oakland have told me similar stories. When aides are seen as a “community” presence more than actual teaching assistance they become another thing in the class to manage. They served crowd control, but were of little academic assistance.
“Combat pay” makes many in the teaching profession’s leadership class a little uncomfortable. It seems inequitable to pay teachers at the same experience level more or less solely on their work address. But unions have traditionally fought for pay differential when the same duties are performed in more challenging places in other workplaces. Teaching shouldn’t be different.
Put lower class size on top of this and you’ve got more teachers at lower performing schools potentially earning more money, with well-trained, and therefore better paid, classroom aides and you’re talking real money. It’s expensive. It requires renegotiating some labor deals, changing part of the education code and pumping a lot more state and local money into our public schools.
In the end, it all comes down to money. Big surprise.
If we’re going to get more money we need to have some good idea of where we’re going to spend it. Paying teachers more for serving lower performing schools is an idea that I think most Californians will agree with. When a teacher tells the average person that they teach in a challenging school the average person usually rolls their eyes and tells the teacher that they’re eligible for sainthood. The average voter respects teachers and respects teachers who serve what they see as above and beyond the call of duty. It could be an effective rallying cry to fight for more funding. It’s the best of all progressive worlds, a good idea which makes for good politics.
Prop 82: Universal Preschool - A Parent's Eye View
It’s too bad that
Senator Don Perata (D-Oakland) has come out against Proposition 82. As a former teacher, he really should know better.
Back in 2001 I went shopping for daycare for my then-three-year-old son here in Sacramento. I was struck by the disparity in educational skills possessed by the various sites I looked over. While they all touted school readiness as a critical part of their program, seeing typos all over teacher-prepared materials at some sites didn’t make me feel very comfortable with what some had to offer. Other materials were poorly constructed and the instructors, most of whom had training far short of a credentialed teacher, were uneven. Perhaps the most damning criticism came from one of my son’s later kindergarten classmates, who flunked kindergarten after reportedly attending preschool in another area.
Many preschool instructors are inspired, prepared and offer valuable services to youngsters. They have to. My son was bringing a packet of homework home in his first week of school. Students are expected to come in to school already grounded in the alphabet, numbers, colors and many basic skills. It’s not kindergarten as school preparatory anymore. It’s pre-first grade.
Our higher standards in public education have effectively added a whole new grade level to public education. Proposition 82 recognizes this by offering trained credentialed instruction to truly prepare children as we now expect them to be prepared for school.
Senator Perata claims that it would apply unequally to richer and poorer students. In fact, the opposite would be true. Currently, a family’s ability to pay strongly affects the quality of preschool their children enjoy. Proposition 82 would offer a level playing field of service and standards.
Senator Perata also says that it might draw teachers away from K-12. This is highly unlikely. Teachers generally work with the grade levels they feel the most comfortable with and are trained for. This would, in fact, open up more professional opportunities for trained teachers. My wife teaches in the Sacramento City Unified School District and reports at least four applicants for every job posted. Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the “teacher shortage”, there are plenty of qualified people out there willing and able to take on these duties.
Past legislators have proposed using the proposed tax increase on higher incomes to balance the state budget. But a legislative tax hike requires Republican agreement, and that’s not likely. A ballot initiative can levy the tax by simple majority. Doesn’t it make sense to use a ballot initiative to target this revenue stream where it can do a world of good, by ensuring quality universal preschool?
I am currently a parent co-leader of a volunteer project at my son’s school using First 5 funds to promote health, safety and nutrition among children and parents. First 5, until recently headed at the state level by Rob Reiner, chief proponent of Proposition 82, has helped fund targeted programs for children and families across Sacramento County and across the state using cigarette tax funds. I have recently been honored by being named to serve on a County community advisory board to help keep moving the program moving forward. Meeting with other children’s service providers from around the county helps me see the need and the opportunity Proposition 82 offers.
Senator Perata has been in public service for several decades at the state and local level. He’s made education a stated priority most if not all of those years. I can’t believe he can’t see the great chance we have now to take a big step forward in ensuring quality education preparation for all. Maybe he just needs a little more time.
For more information
read a good concise and relatively impartial review of the measure from EdSource.
Coming to a Phone Near You: Son of Prop 73
I got an interesting phone call yesterday.
The automated fellow on the other end of the line wanted me to help him put another "parental notification" measure on the ballot, to require that parents be informed, or require permission, when their daughters seek to end a pregnancy.
You have to have it to the morals police. They're persistent, even after a stunning defeat of
Proposition 73 at last year's special election. If you don't succeed, try, try, again, the distinctly American motto tells us. I'm sure that Prop 73's backers conducted a post-election review and told themselves that it was just a matter of a lot of voters voting down everything as a response to the election; or that the measure's sneaky attempt to throw in anti-Roe language doomed it; and/or that those silly weirdos in the coastal counties came out in force and turned it away. So why not try again?
It certainly seems like a great cause for the morals police to take on. What parent wouldn't want to be a part of the discussion around their minor daughter's pregnancy? I would. I have a son, and when gets to reproductive age (it still takes two to tango) I'll tell him that if he finds himself a potential father-to-be, I want to talk to him about it. But I don't want to do it at gunpoint. If my son or daughter felt they needed to take the discussion away from me, the fault is mine for failing to build the right level of trust.
Some things just can't be legislated. Trust and love are two of them.
So I certainly plan on fighting this measure if it gets to the ballot again. But I was most intrigued by the shotgun approach to organizing for it this time. The caller asked me to help gather petitions and, of course, to donate money. He called upon "registered voters" to help. I'm a Democrat who voted in every election. Most campaign organizers would presume that I vote a liberal ticket. So why contact me? How did I get on the list? And who's paying for all this?
Voter lists aren't expensive but they aren't cheap either, especially if you're (presumably) covering an entire city or county. Prop. 73 lost by a
relatively close margin statewide, 47.2 for to 52.8 against. It lost by just a few percentage points here in Sacramento County, so many the organizers thought it was ripe for recruitment. It's also home to a lot of public workers, many of whom take an active interest in organized politics outside of work. It's good soil to plant a new campaign, or a new old campaign. But it still seems an oddly unfocused approach.
There are certainly plenty of anti-choice organizations out there willing and able to take this on. Why fall back on random calling? I wonder if the "mainline" groups have thrown in the towel on trying getting the Blue Bear Republic to change its "immoral and irresponsible" approach on this issue. They may have seen the response to their sneaky attempt to stick an anti-choice poison pill in the California Constitution through Prop. 73, which turned the election into a general referendum on choice as much as parental notification, for what it was, California's pro-choice majority making itself heard and felt. Maybe it's scared most of them off for now.
Progressives should thank them for the opportunity they provided to make this statement. With Roe v. Wade unsure now, state legislators have to step back up and take a stand again. With Prop. 73's defeat, it makes it a lot easier for potential fence sitters to stand on their own two feet on the issue.
For now, that ringing phone could offer you a chance to give the anti-choice forces hope for a Redder California. All you have to do to dishearten them is hang up. It might be the easiest progressive action you can take today.
Deja Vu, All Over Again
Steve Westly's surprising climb to a double digit lead over presumed frontrunner Phil Angelides is proof that Californians still want to believe that the budget can be balanced in good part by efficiency, audits, and other numbers games.
In short, I say, we Californians want something for nothing.
Arnold promised that when he ran to throw Gray Davis out of office. Remember the ruthless audit he was going to conduct on the state books? Oh, many an Arnold backer I talked to was convinced that somehow Gray Davis's alleged "pay for play" policy had secreted scrillions of dollars off in unnamed vaults, and once they were opened, there would be money enough for schools, roads, parks and a lower vehicle license fee. Of course, none of this was likely but it fed the idea that there was no real choice between taxes and services, and Arnold rode that belief in to Sacramento.
Now Steve Westly has taken the story over and it seems to be working.
There is no real "dysfunction" in California politics. There is simply the age-old problem of how a democracy decides to pay for what it wants. The left hand wants a warm glove but the right hand doesn't want to reach in to the pocket to get money to pay for it. This isn't new. The GOP has found this just as true on the national level, leading to record deficits by offering tax cuts with no consequent drop in spending because people generally like what the federal government does for them.
We kick this up several notches here in California because of our ridiculous requirement that two thirds of the legislature agree to a budget and higher taxes, making it impossible for the majority to govern by making a good faith offer to voters that if they want what they want, they need to pay for it, or be willing to put something aside.
Both spending and taxes remain locked in place, way out of sync, with no relief. Nor does the public seem to want one, looking at their surprising support for both Arnold, Steve Westly and their rejection of a ballot initiative which would have reduced the two thirds requirement for budgets and taxes.
There is just under seven weeks left in the gubernatorial election. Phil Angelides, the honest man in the tax-and-spending discussion, can still turn it around. Westly's bubble may have been a "step forward, let's look at you" response to his recent barrage of ads.
But it might also be Californians once again looking for the tooth fairy in terms of reconciling our public giving and our public receiving. In that, it's "deja vu, all over again." The saddest part is that it means even many Democrats are falling for it, all over again.
Term Limits Limited?
I recently attended the California Council of Churches legislative lobbying day, good people of faith out to nag our happy Democratic majority about issues surrounding health care, immigration reform, marriage equality and other good progressive causes of the day. During our visit Ie heard an interesting rumor concerning term limits.
The buzz was that there might be an attempt to modify term limits to allow members to stay in one house for up to twelve years. The idea is to provide some institutional knowledge and party loyalty and connection to each house, which is sadly lacking under the current system of six years (three terms) allowed in the Assembly, eight years (two terms) allowed in the Senate.
Progressives generally hate term limits. The argument is that it creates a weak legislature where expertise is lost as soon as its obtained, institutional knowledge is non-existent and leaders hold no authority over members, and therefore makes it a lot harder to get members to work together on the hard problems.
I don't oppose term limits, as many good progressives seem to do. I think the principle of trying to retain citizen legislators instead of decades-long political professionals is a good one. Term limits have also opened up the legislature to more closely reflect the state.
The most incredible development has been the openly gay Lavender Caucus, something which would have been unheard of just a few decades ago. The constant turnover means constant opportunity for more people, and it's produced a good progressive result. (The unique exception is the reduction in the number of African American legislators, but that's due in good part to the dispersal of black voters.)
So, term limits are good for some things, but bad in others. Like most things.
Among the bad is the decline in party loyalty and control. When everyone's a short-timer, everyone comes in already looking out for their next job. Party discipline is weakened, "everyone is a free agent", as one volunteer lobbyist stated at the California Council of Churches gathering.
Officeholding under term limits becomes a game of musical chairs, Assembly to Senate, Senate to statewide or other (like the Board of Equalization) or even back to local politics, as Helen Thomson recently did, swapping her termed out Assembly seat for her old spot on the Yolo County board. It gets weird.
Giving legislators more time in one house could be one way to get around this by offering almost the same number of years in legislative service without the need to keep an eye out for the next move. It would help build institutional loyalty and help foster closer personal relationships between legislators of different factions or parties. It's an idea worth considering.
The public has made it clear that they like term limits. They even rejected giving themselves the power to make an exception for their own legislators, as proposed by John Burton in a recent ballot proposition. As much as many rail against them, they're here to stay. So we're left with fixing what we've got as a progressive response.
According to my most recent discussions, this idea is still in development. No one yet wants to champion it, as no one yet wants to risk potential backlash among their own voters. It will probably come out of the Senate, as senators can take a risk on an election cycle where they're not on the ballot.
If you're interested, and you should be, contact your Assemblymember or state Senator and let them know how to you feel about restructuring term limits. Go to:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.htmlto see who you need to contact:
